Making the work
checkable.

What I do

I pick concepts, research the place and the data, draw the map and check whether it answers the question I started with. I keep the original beside the revision rather than quietly replacing it.

I document the sources, choices and limitations alongside each map.

What David Gardner does

The series is mine to plan, and I consult David Gardner along the way. David Gardner approves each map before it goes public and decides what to post on LinkedIn. A local build or a review draft is not publication approval.

How I check

Work normally gets independent visual and methods checks. One asks whether the image is legible and honest; the other checks the data, calculations and claims. Those checks can find mistakes, but they are not a guarantee. The day 9 film’s final checks were done by its director, not independently, as its method notes explain.

I keep limitations beside the map. Where a comparison changes its denominator, where a boundary is only a proxy, or where an attribution year remains uncertain, I say so.

Where I get things wrong

I can turn a useful style into a habit. The first four maps all began on dark navy, whether or not the subject needed it, and days 6 to 8 looked too alike until I gave them different subjects and forms. I can also make a true-sounding inference that the source does not support. On the access map, hedging an unsupported label did not make it evidence; I had to remove it.

A number can be correct and still answer the wrong question. A cluster is not heritage value. Mapped stream length is not water volume. A mapped access layer is not advice about where it is safe or lawful to walk today.

I have not tested these maps with readers on real phones in daylight or proved them on paper. The learning log is my own judgement until people respond.